"Reef Safe" Vendors

[Bleigh]

So, if we eliminate the individual vendor sticker part will that help?

That wasn’t a part of the original plan but some vendors wanted that is why it was added.

Yeah I don't know how I feel about individual vendors. It's a lot of responsibility to add to people who may be traveling long distances and want to focus on their business. If people on R2R are already interpreting it as the only people without the badge are those who are unsafe, I'm sure it will be seen that way by at least some people at the show. People who have priors, for whatever reason, will definitely not get the badge. It's not hard to imagine (I don't, but I see how others could) see that as self-selecting out for applying for the badge. I like the idea of this being external to vendors, if it's going to be done. Let vendors know who to contact if a kid is lost, but don't require them to be the ones who solve the issue. They're likely not going to be the best equipped for that anyways.

My son got lost in a store at the mall, and by lost, I mean he hid. They immediately locked down the entire mall and the police came running. Luckily he realized it was serious and popped out, but it was good to know that had there been an issue, someone beyond the store could take control of the situation from a wider view. The store knew who to call, and the rest was taken over. Which was good because the store employees were about as scared as I was that we couldn't find the kiddo.

 

[Daniel@R2R]

It absolutely was intended to be left to her personal standards. She said in her post that "We will check vendors who volunteer their booth to be a "reef safe" place". She gets to make the decisions and apply her own personal morals.

The original proposal goes well beyond creating independent safe zones at the event. The intent was to get vendors to be screened and deemed "safe" so that it was clear what vendors were "unsafe" so they could be avoided and boycotted. I don't understand how you can possibly read the initial post and not get that unless you just are selectively ignoring the things that were ACTUALLY WRITTEN!

If you want to have a post about ways to protect children at coral swaps, you might want to start a different thread. This one begins with a pretty offensive attempt to penalize anyone that doesn't meet the OP's personal moral standards and goes downhill from there. IMO, the initial post doesn't meet the R2R standards that you posted halfway through the thread and it should have been deleted immediately.

I disagree. Who do you think "we" is? It's obviously not a one person operation. Also, the wording is "We will check vendors who VOLUNTEER their booth." So it's not just selecting vendors. Vendors who would want to participate would volunteer to be involved (follows with what I said in my previous post).

Besides, at this point we're talking about doing away with individual stickers altogether and simply having safe zones at the event. IMO this is very much a thread about ways to protect children at coral swaps.

 

[Bleigh]

I disagree. Who do you think "we" is? It's obviously not a one person operation. Also, the wording is "We will check vendors who VOLUNTEER their booth." So it's not just selecting vendors. Vendors who would want to participate would volunteer to be involved (follows with what I said in my previous post).

Besides, at this point we're talking about doing away with individual stickers altogether and simply having safe zones at the event. IMO this is very much a thread about ways to protect children at coral swaps.

Agreed! It's a great conversation to be having. Both the pros and cons are important to consider.

 

[helen ann]

It absolutely was intended to be left to her personal standards. She said in her post that "We will check vendors who volunteer their booth to be a "reef safe" place". She gets to make the decisions and apply her own personal morals.

The original proposal goes well beyond creating independent safe zones at the event. The intent was to get vendors to be screened and deemed "safe" so that it was clear what vendors were "unsafe" so they could be avoided and boycotted. I don't understand how you can possibly read the initial post and not get that unless you just are selectively ignoring the things that were ACTUALLY WRITTEN!

If you want to have a post about ways to protect children at coral swaps, you might want to start a different thread. This one begins with a pretty offensive attempt to penalize anyone that doesn't meet the OP's personal moral standards and goes downhill from there. IMO, the initial post doesn't meet the R2R standards that you posted halfway through the thread and it should have been deleted immediately.

As I said, this wasn’t a perfect plan and I am not looking to judge anyone, those were just thoughts, taking ideas of things in place at other ‘family’ events or places.

All I can say is it was not my intention to offend anyone or stop anyone from attending or feeling they were being labeled. So, all I can say is sorry.

 

[bluprntguy]

I disagree. Who do you think "we" is? It's obviously not a one person operation. Also, the wording is "We will check vendors who VOLUNTEER their booth." So it's not just selecting vendors. Vendors who would want to participate would volunteer to be involved (follows with what I said in my previous post).

Besides, at this point we're talking about doing away with individual stickers altogether and simply having safe zones at the event. IMO this is very much a thread about ways to protect children at coral swaps.

The Scarlet Letters are part of the initial post. I'm glad that almost everyone agrees that it's a horrible idea, but it doesn't change the fact that it was part of the initial post and that fact clarified that the intent was to penalize those vendors that don't meet the moral code of the person that's setting up the "we". She and her group is going to be reviewing the applications and making the decisions on who gets deemed safe and who gets deemed unsafe - she determines who gets the Scarlet Letter.

 

[Daniel@R2R]

The Scarlet Letters are part of the initial post. I'm glad that almost everyone agrees that it's a horrible idea, but it doesn't change the fact that it was part of the initial post and that fact clarified that the intent was to penalize those vendors that don't meet the moral code of the person that's setting up the "we". She and her group is going to be reviewing the applications and making the decisions on who gets deemed safe and who gets deemed unsafe - who gets the Scarlet Letter.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree about the intentions behind the OP. In any case, the discussion has moved since then and is now considering zones rather than individual vendor stickers. Is that something you think is a better idea?

 

[motortrendz]

But don’t be concrete. Saying “everyone gets a safe zone sticker except the one with a record” is the equivalent of bannig someone.

If the “safe zone” is unrelated to the vendors, perfect. Have a booth in the center with some tall flags or something.

This is exactly what I have been saying since this post came out. Although noone expressly said ban them. Give them a scarlet letter and walk them through the isles while every one yells "shame!"

 

[motortrendz]

I think if there are to be things implemented for safety, security they should not include vendors in any way. It should be I cooperated into the floor plan/layout of the venue.

 

[Bleigh]

The Scarlet Letters are part of the initial post. I'm glad that almost everyone agrees that it's a horrible idea, but it doesn't change the fact that it was part of the initial post and that fact clarified that the intent was to penalize those vendors that don't meet the moral code of the person that's setting up the "we". She and her group is going to be reviewing the applications and making the decisions on who gets deemed safe and who gets deemed unsafe - she determines who gets the Scarlet Letter.

I think it's okay to expect someone's ideas to evolve as an idea is discussed. I see the first post as a rough draft idea. There's always someone who's making the decision for anything like this. Whether it's the board running a reefing event, or the school board determining what is acceptable and what's not acceptable to show up on a background check for an adult to be allowed around children. Making a distinction that it would be a problem for someone who would be part of that decision making process is a bit pedantic. Someone along the way would have to make these decisions. I hope the idea of giving "safe" badges to vendors who apply to get them is thrown out, but I think this conversation, and the evolution of it, is completely healthy.

 

[TheHarold]

I think if there are to be things implemented for safety, security they should not include vendors in any way. It should be I cooperated into the floor plan/layout of the venue.

Yup. Nobody that isn’t trained should “play” security.

 

[helen ann]

I don’t know how to say it any other way, I am not looking to ‘shame’ anyone.

The plan isn’t perfect, my wording isn’t perfect, I am not perfect!

Again, I apologize for the post.

 

[motortrendz]

I think it's okay to expect someone's ideas to evolve as an idea is discussed. I see the first post as a rough draft idea. There's always someone who's making the decision for anything like this. Whether it's the board running a reefing event, or the school board determining what is acceptable and what's not acceptable to show up on a background check for an adult to be allowed around children. Making a distinction that it would be a problem for someone who would be part of that decision making process is a bit pedantic. Someone along the way would have to make these decisions. I hope the idea of giving "safe" badges to vendors who apply to get them is thrown out, but I think this conversation, and the evolution of it, is completely healthy.

I couldn't agree more. These vendors are not running a chuck-e-cheese or a daycare. They're selling coral.

 

[Quietman]

An additional consideration should be how would this be enforced. Everyone gets behind "safe zones" in theory... we all feel kids should be safe. But who verifies, who enforces non compliance, who would bear liability? The optional wrist bands seem very workable. I used to use those kid leashes at Disney...I think they're considered bad form now. But I doubt any event sponsor would sign up to guarantee a Safe Zone.

 

[Silver14SS]

The Scarlet Letters are part of the initial post. I'm glad that almost everyone agrees that it's a horrible idea, but it doesn't change the fact that it was part of the initial post and that fact clarified that the intent was to penalize those vendors that don't meet the moral code of the person that's setting up the "we". She and her group is going to be reviewing the applications and making the decisions on who gets deemed safe and who gets deemed unsafe - who gets the Scarlet Letter.

I think I asked half a dozen times what the criteria was and got no response which leads me to agree with you that it will not be objective. If it's just checking to see if they are on Megan's list, that's fine, just say that

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree about the intentions behind the OP. In any case, the discussion has moved since then and is now considering zones rather than individual vendor stickers. Is that something you think is a better idea?

Agreed that the conversation has changed, but read the OP and don't focus on the 2nd half that has the proposal. read what the proposal is due to. Many appear to be reading it as if the motivation is solely due to someone unwanted being there and something should be done about it. Then the conversation backpedals into justifying the first half in the name of safety, but it comes across as maybe trying to find ways to exclude unwanted individuals - that's probably why people are saying de facto ban even if they aren't actually banned.

Again, that's totally fine and within people's prerogatives, just own it that people on whatever list aren't wanted there. No need to mask it with niceties, just come out and say it

 

[kschweer]

I’m not going to argue whether I think this is a good idea or not but I do think a lot is being overlooked or simply not thought about. When you say background check do you mean an “official” background check or someone typing a name into google and seeing what comes up? A real background check costs decent money and can take some time, I know my father is a private investigator for 25+ years. Who is going to cover these costs and what if vendors don’t get in before the deadline for the background check? If it’s just someone on google that’s pretty much useless. Also will these background checks be done each show? Again if not it’s kind of pointless as things can happen between shows and if a check isn’t done every time they really are only valid for the previous show. These wristbands will also cost money who is footing that bill?

And lastly if a vendor decides not to do this and doesn’t have a sticker will people think they didn’t pass the background check or didn’t get one because they are worried about it?

 

[Bleigh]

I don’t know how to say it any other way, I am not looking to ‘shame’ anyone.

The plan isn’t perfect, my wording isn’t perfect, I am not perfect!

Again, I apologize for the post.

I can see how people could see it that way, even though I recognize compeltely that was not your intention. You were asking for input and ideas. And I think you were honestly open to those. I'd ignore anyone who continues to bash the "rough draft" idea. My biggest issue is not the shame aspect, even though I could see it being problematic for vendors who don't want to apply for the badge. It is telling parents and children that an adult is safe, when you're basing that on limited information. There is no way to know whether they just hadn't got caught for anything. I could see that being a liability issue if you gave someone a safe badge and then they did something "unsafe". I think it builds a false sense of security as well. Potentially allowing parents to let their guard down.

I do love the idea of having a policy for how to lock the place down or make sure children match the adults, etc.

 

[Daniel@R2R]

I’m not going to argue whether I think this is a good idea or not but I do think a lot is being overlooked or simply not thought about. When you say background check do you mean an “official” background check or someone typing a name into google and seeing what comes up? A real background check costs decent money and can take some time, I know my father is a private investigator for 25+ years. Who is going to cover these costs and what if vendors don’t get in before the deadline for the background check? If it’s just someone on google that’s pretty much useless. Also will these background checks be done each show? Again if not it’s kind of pointless as things can happen between shows and if a check isn’t done every time they really are only valid for the previous show. These wristbands will also cost money who is footing that bill?

I'm not sure what the plan is for payment, but it really doesn't have to cost a lot of money. Criminal background checks can be had for $12-15. I know this because of the work we do in screening our volunteers for church. Wristbands don't have to cost much either. There are other child check-in systems available too. The bulk of that cost is on the front end, but the upkeep is really minimal. I think from a cost perspective, having a few people sponsor the child safety plan would easily pay for it.

And lastly if a vendor decides not to do this and doesn’t have a sticker will people think they didn’t pass the background check or didn’t get one because they are worried about it?

I think we're talking about doing away with those stickers.

 

[TheHarold]

I’m actually rather proud about how many R2R members stood up against discriminating against those with criminal histories.

 

[kschweer]

I'm not sure what the plan is for payment, but it really doesn't have to cost a lot of money. Criminal background checks can be had for $12-15. I know this because of the work we do in screening our volunteers for church. Wristbands don't have to cost much either. There are other child check-in systems available too. The bulk of that cost is on the front end, but the upkeep is really minimal. I think from a cost perspective, having a few people sponsor the child safety plan would easily pay for it.

I think we're talking about doing away with those stickers.

Some background checks can be had fairly cheap but are also fairly limited in scope and usually are only state wide. For larger shows with out of state vendors a nation wide check should be done and will cost more.

 

[Shep]

I’m not going to argue whether I think this is a good idea or not but I do think a lot is being overlooked or simply not thought about. When you say background check do you mean an “official” background check or someone typing a name into google and seeing what comes up? A real background check costs decent money and can take some time, I know my father is a private investigator for 25+ years. Who is going to cover these costs and what if vendors don’t get in before the deadline for the background check? If it’s just someone on google that’s pretty much useless. Also will these background checks be done each show? Again if not it’s kind of pointless as things can happen between shows and if a check isn’t done every time they really are only valid for the previous show. These wristbands will also cost money who is footing that bill?

And lastly if a vendor decides not to do this and doesn’t have a sticker will people think they didn’t pass the background check or didn’t get one because they are worried about it?

Don't forget that vendors usually bring family/friends with them too, would they need to be vetted as well? I really feel like this is trying to make something out of nothing. Sure, have an area where lost kids can go to so their parents can find them faster. Lots of places have something like this but we don't need to brand it "Reef Safe", we don't need stickers for vendors, we don't need anything complicated. I really don't get whats trying to be accomplished here. Also, I think I saw earlier that only one parent gets the arm band......if only one legal guardian can have the arm band then whats the point in having them? Also, unless you have law enforcement there, you couldn't stop/check someone who was trying to leave with a kid but didn't have the arm band, so what would you even do?